Subjective vs Objective opinions

@MichealW, Thanks for your insight. I think it's very important. I know almost nothing of philosophy but I've often felt that people believe they are being objective when what they're actually doing is simply repeating things that they believe to be true and accept as facts, which is one of the traits they object to in subjecivists

Subjective vs Objective opinions

Since we are humans, everything is subjective... we just pretend that things are "objective". Just compare what was considered an "objective" view on certain things 10 years ago and what is "objective" today.

And when it comes to audio... please! When human ears are involved, everything said *must* be subjective. Not to talk about individual settings.

And what we should have learned by now: Just because a certain amount of individuals claims the very same thing, it says nothing about the truth or objectivness of the claim. What we know today is just a tiny, tiny part of what we didn't know yesterday. We can't be so self-obsessed to claim that we know an objective truth... we're just working in a certain direction - as a common effort that might be obsolete tomorrow.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

My understanding is that, in the audio context, "objective" tends to be used with reference to measurements made by instruments. For sure these are useful, but you need to make sure *which* measurements, within *what* ranges, actually make a difference to sound. One trick of the fraudiophile end of things is to produce cables which have objectively measurable superior performance, but only at frequencies that are totally irrelevant to audio (is "skin effect" the right term?). Or to advertise amps that are flat up to 50KHz; great for talking to bats, but quite irrelevant for music.

Another common use of "objective" is to mean something like "soundly based" or "not full of BS." My chief point is that you can, with some difficulty, talk about subjective responses in a way that is disciplined and relatively BS-free. "Subjective" doesn't have to mean that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, or anything like that.

Getting a grip on subjective response, in a way that is useful to engineers, even, is one of the great successes of the second half of the 20th century; it happened in imaging, I guess it's at the heart of ergonomics, and it seems to be what has driven the improvement of lossy codecs.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

My understanding is that, in the audio context, "objective" tends to be used with reference to measurements made by instruments. For sure these are useful, but you need to make sure *which* measurements, within *what* ranges, actually make a difference to sound. One trick of the fraudiophile end of things is to produce cables which have objectively measurable superior performance, but only at frequencies that are totally irrelevant to audio (is "skin effect" the right term?). Or to advertise amps that are flat up to 50KHz; great for talking to bats, but quite irrelevant for music.

'Objective' can also apply to subjective data. ABX tests, for example, involve subjective self-report, but the reports are checked against objective fact (the true identity of X) and mathematical probability.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

Since we are humans, everything is subjective... we just pretend that things are "objective". Just compare what was considered an "objective" view on certain things 10 years ago and what is "objective" today.

There is a difference between evidence and conclusion.You are talking about "views" which I take to mean "conclusions". Clearly different conclusions can be reached over the course of time as more evidence is gathered - but it would be a misstatement to claim that evidence gathered at one point in time will be later found to be false.

And what we should have learned by now: Just because a certain amount of individuals claims the very same thing, it says nothing about the truth or objectivness of the claim. What we know today is just a tiny, tiny part of what we didn't know yesterday. We can't be so self-obsessed to claim that we know an objective truth... we're just working in a certain direction - as a common effort that might be obsolete tomorrow.

You appear to be implying conclusions which just are not aired by the vast majority of people on HA. HA discussions rarely revolve around "claims" - they revolve around tests and (as objectively as possible) gathered evidence. Saying "99% of people tested were unable to statistically prove they could perceive a difference between encoding A and encoding B" is as close to an objective truth as is possible. This is also a claim which will stand the test of time, your arguments not withstanding. unless you are claiming a future test might show that “hey, I actually DID hear temporal smearing back in 1999!”

I do not see the broad generalizations you appear to be claiming people make here regarding "truth".

Subjective vs Objective opinions

Or to advertise amps that are flat up to 50KHz; great for talking to bats, but quite irrelevant for music.

In the design of amplifiers there is more to consider than just attending to the frequencies perceivable by humans.

If frequencies that are beyond that of the human hearing are taken out there is now a void in the frequency range that needs to be filled. If I remember correctly this phenomenon is called slew-induced distortion. Happy to be corrected.

Apologies for veering off topic I just thought that might be off interest.

Quote

I know almost nothing of philosophy but I've often felt that people believe they are being objective when what they're actually doing is simply repeating things that they believe to be true and accept as facts, which is one of the traits they object to in subjecivists

I have similar thoughts to this and it is why I currently refuse to get off the fence when it comes to the subjective-objective debate. As you would have seen in the thread I previously shared with you I get frustrated when people can't even consider the other side of the debate.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

SNIP'Objective' can also apply to subjective data. ABX tests, for example, involve subjective self-report, but the reports are checked against objective fact (the true identity of X) and mathematical probability.SNIP

Yeah, I can see that, but I'm suggesting that, as "objectivist" tends to mean "relying on measurements," it might be good to clarify the meaning of "objective." Rather often, "objective truth" means "truth that I recognise." In the field I used to work in, there's a sometimes useful phrase: "intersubjectively verifiable." But that is different, I think, from the methodology you describe, which depends on verifying subjective judgement against objective criteria. That's fundamental; I'm just nattering over whether calling it "objective" is sufficiently nuanced, indicating the extent to which ABX, for instance, accommodates phenomena that we don't know how to measure yet. ABX tests are a way of determining whether there are, in fact, factors other than frequency response, distortion and signal to noise ratio that matter to music listeners (that is, that matter subjectively).

Perhaps I've wittered on too much about the meanings of words; but it's kind of nice to know just where disagreements lie.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

There's actually a modest, steady level of audio 'objectivism' online these days, between this place, audioholics , AVSforum (the latter two are wobblier but that's because they don't mandate 'proof of claim'),

Don't forget about Head-Fi! Even though it's a great forum with some users reincarnated from this website and looking at things from a purely scientific point of a view I have seen some quackery topics on there. Some which make me cringe. Anyway I thought I would chime in seeing that you were mentioning other audio forums on the net.

I am a HeadFi reject or shall I say I have gotten out of the hobby and that community after a long and expensive journey. I've read Hydrogen on and off with some skepticism. But after many humbling experiences, I tend to believe this community is way more sane than Headfi (e.g. spending hundreds, thousands of dollars in recabling headphones that are about a foot long, etc.).

Folks spending 10's of thousands of dollars to eek out as much "signal purity" (whatever that means to whoever is spending the money) is utter nonsense and wasteful. After owning many hi-end audio equipment, I have found that the law of diminishing returns hits hard and fast right about a couple hundred bucks.

I love Head-Fi, I think some of the folks who post there are some of the nicest people you will meet. But just like many many audiophiles (a term I don't really want to be attached to anymore), they are being lied and fooled - plain and simple.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

I migrated here from Head-Fi. Even if you are a audio "objectivist" hanging out at Head-Fi can make you start to question if the neurons in your brain are functioning properly. I won't go into my ideas of the psychology behind it, but what I think is best summed up by the people who say that audiophilia is a religion. I'm glad a forum like this exists. It reminds me that audio can be a fun and inexpensive hobby, not a mass of subjective insanity.

I think as audio has become cheaper and more accessible to people with limited financial resources these people have had to be more rigorous when thinking about how to spend their money. When your wallet is small it's easier to question conventional audiophile wisdom and look for people (like the people here) who are willing to say their IPOD sounds just as good as a $10K CD player.

Arguably, Hydrogenaudio also helps us to realize that perfection is measure in our minds. If all amps sound the same in a blind test, you can stop fooling with amps and start to shift your internal perspective to accept the amp you have is actually good. You can also put your focus somewhere else, like actually enjoying your music instead of constantly fiddling with your equipment. It seems like many people are chasing a perfection that has very little to with the audio reproduction of their music.

As far as the objective vs subjective argument, I think it's important to remember that things other than the sound can determine how we perceive that sound, and these things are actually important and not just points for ridicule. We are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Audio is a holistic experience. Music sounds better in a comfy chair. I like my headphones because they have wood cups, even though listening tests indicate the wood cups probably make no audible difference.

Now, I've obviously walked into la-la land. But Apple figured out (and companies like Dell are finally catching up) that people like things better if they look better. Let's not discount the important of industrial design and beauty. If you fall too far into the objective category you end up arguing that there is no practical difference between an amp in a nice metal case and a cardboard box. But there is a practical difference. People have to look at that case every day and I'd rather have a well crafted case than a torn cardboard box with wires hanging out of it. There may not be an audible difference, but that doesn't mean the amps are interchangeable for day to day life.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

And, of course, some people would prefer a torn cardboard box. They might say they refused to pay $500 for a logo, but I know, because I can feel the attraction myself, that it would be great to have wonderful sound coming out of what looks like junk. Which is about where WAF becomes a relevant factor in choosing the gear you put in a shared room.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

You know, that's really funny - I actually started off lurking in the DIY corner of HeadCase, and then too migrated to Head-Fi before taking permanent residence here. I bought in to the whole subjective headphone amp thing, kit and kaboodle, before selling out piecemeal. (.. although not without realizing that I really should replace my $300 headphone amp with another DIY jobbie one of these days, because of some audible issues!)

I kind of wonder if this is some kind of trend, with Head-Fi basically feeding HydrogenAudio - kind of like how Ayn Rand books tend to feed libertarianism (though the two things are very substantially different). The headphone amp market in particular is.... very curious. It's the cheapest way for the average joe to buy in to "the good life" of high fidelity - and so it's also the cheapest way for said joe to dismiss it as mostly claptrap. All jokes about Patrick82 besides, you see far, far more pro-DBT statements on Head-Fi that on virtually all other audio forums save here.

I hypothesize (and I'm not sure I can back this up) that the relative inexpense of the headphone field allows headphone people to be generally more open to DBT techniques, insofar as they have less emotional investment in their monetary investments in audio. If true, this could have all sorts of deep implications. For one, it is in our best interests to ensure that low end gear is as high a quality as possible - and it is in the high-end world's best interest to denigrate it and ensure it is as poor as possible. (Read what you will into the relative lack of interest spent on low end gear in many mags, the pathetic quality of low-end turntables sold by high-end manufacturers, etc.) It means that, insofar as the audio world has shifted over to be more headphone-centric, pro-DBT sentiment increases - but if the market swings to the other direction, towards speakers, it may decrease.

---

Anyways, to actually respond to the OP, I sincerely believe most of the good arguments for blind testing of audio are exclusively found somewhere on the archives of this site.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

I migrated here from Head-Fi. Even if you are a audio "objectivist" hanging out at Head-Fi can make you start to question if the neurons in your brain are functioning properly. I won't go into my ideas of the psychology behind it, but what I think is best summed up by the people who say that audiophilia is a religion. I'm glad a forum like this exists. It reminds me that audio can be a fun and inexpensive hobby, not a mass of subjective insanity.

Wow, can we start a support group. They have a saying when you join HeadFi, "Welcome to HeadFi, sorry about your wallet." And I used to think it was funny and partly true. Now, I think its hogwash. I think the majority of folks (not just HeadFi either) are more into justifying what they bought than anything else and that saying just supports this ideology.

What funny is I used to go to meets a lot and listen to a lot of equipment (I've pretty much heard everything including hours spent on the Mighty Orpheus setup worth over 20k). After a while I started to question the setup I had and if it was really worth it (could I really tell the difference between my 3k amp and my little small integrated amp/dac combo). I came to the conclusion the answer is no. Then I asked why? Then I started to read a lot of threads in this forum. I still have questions but I am a firm believer and will repeat that the law of diminishing returns HITS HARD with audio.

Quote

As far as the objective vs subjective argument, I think it's important to remember that things other than the sound can determine how we perceive that sound, and these things are actually important and not just points for ridicule. We are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Audio is a holistic experience. Music sounds better in a comfy chair. I like my headphones because they have wood cups, even though listening tests indicate the wood cups probably make no audible difference.

Riedel made a multi-million dollar business convincing folks wine tastes better in the appropriate glass. It worked.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

All jokes about Patrick82 besides, you see far, far more pro-DBT statements on Head-Fi that on virtually all other audio forums save here.

Three comments:

1) Patrick82 - lol, lol, lol, OMG, lol....

2) I had another handle on Headfi and I was very pro-DBT with a lot of things. I even gotten into some *shouting* matches over cables at a meet. Yeesh (basically I wanted to use my cables which were Monster cheapos and the guy refused claiming I would "ruin" his setup). However, I would say the majority of senior guys are not pro-DBT and will go to great lengths to tell you that their 5-10k tube amplifier makes their <insert vocalist> come alive and that no digital reproduction can come close.

3) I with you except I don't have the time or believe the barrier to entry is too large. I think you can make a do-it yourself amplifier that is probably 90% of what you can buy for a fraction of the price. I once had a very candid discussion with a builder at a meet of one of the more popular vendors on HeadFi (I will not say who) but the fact is their 400-500 product is worth about $20-30 dollars in parts!

I actually right now am starting all over. I want a hi-fi notebook setup but this time I want something reasonable and I want to maximize my dollars.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

What funny is I used to go to meets a lot and listen to a lot of equipment (I've pretty much heard everything including hours spent on the Mighty Orpheus setup worth over 20k). After a while I started to question the setup I had and if it was really worth it (could I really tell the difference between my 3k amp and my little small integrated amp/dac combo). I came to the conclusion the answer is no. Then I asked why? Then I started to read a lot of threads in this forum. I still have questions but I am a firm believer and will repeat that the law of diminishing returns HITS HARD with audio.

Yup. Same here. I've only been to one or two meets, but nothing crushed my subjective sensibilities harder than listening to a complete high-end stack from an extremely well-regarded high end headphone amp manufacturer. They're a great bunch of guys, but... there was a lot of proof in that particular pudding. (I was too gracious to actually speak my mind.)

That said, of course none of us really have good DBT environments at those meets, it's all sighted. I could go both ways with that, and say that either the lack of forced critical listening desensitized me, or that I was just more levelheaded than everybody else in the room, or that I was really just prejudiced against it in the first place. But if one is asking those questions in the first place with a five-figure headphone system, something's wrong.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

2) I had another handle on Headfi and I was very pro-DBT with a lot of things. I even gotten into some *shouting* matches over cables at a meet. Yeesh (basically I wanted to use my cables which were Monster cheapos and the guy refused claiming I would "ruin" his setup). However, I would say the majority of senior guys are not pro-DBT and will go to great lengths to tell you that their 5-10k tube amplifier makes their <insert vocalist> come alive and that no digital reproduction can come close.

It depends a lot on the subforum and a lot on how you phrase things. The usual way it works at Head-Fi is that two people will get into some ridiculously loud shouting match, one is obviously right, the other is obviously wrong. Neither side is actually convinced, but the lurkers are very deeply influenced by that kind of stuff one way or another.

That said, I only get close to a couple forums nowadays (Dedicated Source and Sound Science) - so I might be getting a skewed impression of the breakdowns here..

Quote

3) I with you except I don't have the time or believe the barrier to entry is too large. I think you can make a do-it yourself amplifier that is probably 90% of what you can buy for a fraction of the price. I once had a very candid discussion with a builder at a meet of one of the more popular vendors on HeadFi (I will not say who) but the fact is their 400-500 product is worth about $20-30 dollars in parts!

That's how it works in most industries, actually. I'm not sure you can criticize the headphone amp market on margins alone. The margins on high quality electronics (even outside the audio field) are surprisingly high. That an amp manufacturer has a ~93% markup is pretty normal in the grand scheme of things. Also keep in mind, especially with discrete designs, that the core transistors can be surprisingly cheap, but getting them matched and laid out correctly on a PCB does require some skill. And the volume on high end devices is so low that manufacturers often have to raise prices just to break even. I remember a quote to the effect of "there are just as many people buying $1,000 speakers as there are buying $10,000 speakers". It's a weird market.

What is exceptional is that said builders often are doing very little that anybody with a few months of electronics experience can do on their own. Building headphone amps (especially op amp based ones) is not rocket science, whereas most of the other fields that justify 93% markups really are doing rocket sciency types of things with a lot of proprietary knowledge. I don't mean to disparage the true geniuses of the trade, who build truly innovative designs (regardless of their actual audible improvement) - the high end DAC+amp market like with the DAC1 really is dominated by smart guys who really do know more than most people. But very many of the builder types as exist on Head-Fi mostly add value by adding tweako bits to the product like silver wire, and that's walking on some pretty thin ice...

Subjective vs Objective opinions

It means that, insofar as the audio world has shifted over to be more headphone-centric, pro-DBT sentiment increases - but if the market swings to the other direction, towards speakers, it may decrease.

By rights it should not, since the usual psychological confounders act during formation of loudspeaker preference too, as Sean Olive showed in his JAES papers.

However, if DBT for most audio gear is hard for the consumer to set up, DBT for loudspeakers is almost impossible, which makes arguing for them seem even more quixotic, to some. (I say 'almost' because I know of one person who actually claims to do DBTs of loudspeakers...he also builds his own loudspeakers, relying heavily on Toole/Olive-type published work -- look up user 'WmAx' here and on audioholics)

Subjective vs Objective opinions

I've gone to a Headphone meet. What is great about a headphone meet is that you have no emotional or financial investment other than the time it took you to get to the meet and maybe the cost of a hotel room. I was able to try just about everything, including some of the most sought after gear on Head-Fi. Let's just say I came realize just how well my modest (Computer->Cmoy (sometimes) -> Headphones) setup competes with the big boys. I also realized that the point of diminishing returns for headphones (just the headphones, not the other stuff) is very low, well under the $1K people claim you need to spend to get a "audiophile grade" headphone.

And let's face it. It was just plain fun to talk to all those people and listen to all that stuff, even if I didn't agree with most of what was said. Of course, I didn't argue with anything. Sometimes a smile, an open ear, and a closed mouth makes for a more fun when people are saying something you don't agree with.

The OP wanted an example of a subjectivist argument. I don't have a link, but I'll repeat an example of what finally pushed me away from Head-Fi. There is a particular member on Head-Fi that bugs me. If you don't agree with him he insults your hearing ability and experience. He is also an EE so he can justify most of his claims using some technological mumbo-jumbo, even when he's misrepresenting that mumbo-jumbo to suit his argument. As most of the people on Head-Fi aren't EEs they have no way to argue with him.

This person created a thread to claim a software update to some device created a significant audible improvement. There was some discussion on it, then somebody looked at the changelog for the software update and pointed out there was nothing changed that would result in an audible difference. The OP persisted with his opinion that the update caused an audible change. People backed off as obviously his hearing (and high post count) meant more than that what the developers of the hardware/software had said.

That particular thread was among the final few that led me to delete Head-Fi from my bookmarks toolbar. I do kind of miss the easy banter that comes from approaching things in a purely subjective manner, but I think my mental state is better now that I'm here.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

3) I with you except I don't have the time or believe the barrier to entry is too large. I think you can make a do-it yourself amplifier that is probably 90% of what you can buy for a fraction of the price. I once had a very candid discussion with a builder at a meet of one of the more popular vendors on HeadFi (I will not say who) but the fact is their 400-500 product is worth about $20-30 dollars in parts!

I think you can build a DIY amp (such as one from www.amb.org) that is 100% of any other product for a fraction of the cost. But commercial amp makers like Headroom have to factor in warranties, paychecks, sales staff, websites, etc. When you DIY you avoid all that.

Of course, if you are using a computer as a source, I'd argue any amp beyond the one built into your computer is not always necessary. But that's an argument for a different thread.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

head-fi has been mentioned as a place where subjectivists are in the majority. I find that forum to be more fact-based than the audioasylum.com PC Audio forum. AA seems to be to be the most hostile to objectivists of the forums I visit with any regularity. two or three years ago, it used to be a reasonable place to get info on sound cards, player s/w and the like. However, it is now swamped with tweakers who have moved over from forums where they talked about cables and power cords.

I'm comfortable with a reasonable amount of subjectivist threads reporting on differences they heard. I really dislike the threads where people make up completely bogus theories about how computer audio works.

Computeraudiophile.com has a thread about the banning of a frequent poster (and manufacturer) who was quite emphatic about dismissing subjectivist's concerns. He was rather agressive but so are some rather extreme subjectivists who are manufacturers. They push their own porducts more often but weren't banned there.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

I've just joined here, in part as a refuge from computeraudiophile. Having long ago given up on magazines and some of the other forums because of the faint humming noise they cause in my head, I look forward to breathing the fresh air around here.

Regarding the subjective vs objective debate. In place of objective, how about rationalist? It implies an enquiring mind but not one happy to deceive itself.

Subjective vs Objective opinions

Bill said:"Computeraudiophile.com has a thread about the banning of a frequent poster (and manufacturer) who was quite emphatic about dismissing subjectivist's concerns. He was rather agressive but so are some rather extreme subjectivists who are manufacturers. They push their own porducts more often but weren't banned there"

Me I'm afraid! It all started reasonably but CA shifted from an Oasis of reason to one where snake oil was taking over. I never learn to shut up and slink off and I had been encouraged privately to say what I like, I'd guess to get it rolling.

Still I hate the subjectivity, I know my ears can't be trusted, so I look for proof for everything, both from measurement and from others who I've learned to respect for their ability to hear that much more than most of us.

I've also discovered that it is impossible for a manufacturer to just chat amongst enthusiasts, some will accept you and that you're likely to be biased, but others always look for an agenda especially subjectivists. They will use any method fair or foul to censor anyone with could be a valid challenge. The UK forums can be a war zone!